Last week, citing a number of sources, we argued that the percentage of homeless suffering from mental illness was only about one-quarter to one-third of the total population. There have been other studies that suggest that number is a good deal higher.

But there seems to be an interesting split between those who believe that homelessness is due primarily to mental illness versus those who don’t. Of course, even if the number is “only” 30-37 percent of the total population, that does not mean that mental illness is not a factor. That is still well higher than the overall percentage of mentally ill in the overall population.

Still, I think there is an important point to be made – if the homeless population is rising and worsening, that is not because suddenly there is a much larger percentage of people who are mentally ill.

As Tia Boatman Patterson, Governor Newsom’s Senior Housing Adviser, pointed out, there is a growing number of Californians who are experiencing homelessness, and she argues that “more of our state’s residents are homeless because of a temporary hardship that has forced them into couch surfing or living in their car. These are people that recently had housing, may still hold a decent job, and simply require more affordable housing opportunities.”

On the other hand, “there are the folks who are chronically homeless and may be suffering from mental illness.” She argues, “The distinction is important to make so that we can have productive discussions about the differing needs of each group and the most effective solutions, from short-term fixes to permanent supportive housing to the combination of resources, increased planning and zoning reforms needed to address our state’s massive housing supply issue.”

Lisa Hershey from Housing California argued, “More Californians are homeless because we don’t have necessary supports, like eviction protection, stable rents, and a focus on building permanent rental housing for lower incomes.

She pushed for the state to pass policies like SB 282 which provides housing for people on parole who have mental illness, AB 10 which provides housing investment for lower-income Californians, and SB 329 which ends discrimination of rental applicants based on the source of income, as well as rent control and eviction protection.

She argued: “These solutions help people who are homeless and keep people from falling into homelessness in the first place. A multipronged, sustained plan to provide homes to people most in need will end this decades-long crisis.”

There are those who argue that the cost of housing is a problem. For instance, Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said, “It’s unconscionable that it costs an average of $330,000 to build a unit of affordable housing in California.”

He said, “Throwing housing bonds and other revenue solutions at the problem will be ineffective until we address this root cause.”

Not surprisingly for many, the answer is simply addressing California’s huge housing shortage while shoring up our mental health and addiction safety net.

Senator Scott Wiener has pushed to increase housing in a variety of ways, many of which are controversial.

“About 70% of homeless people have neither a mental health nor an addiction problem. They simply can’t afford housing. They’re living in shelters, cars, motels, tents, or couches, often going to work and bringing their kids to school each day. They are in this predicament because of California’s failure to build enough housing at any income level,” said Senator Wiener.

He added, “California has a 3.5 million home deficit, ranks 49 out of 50 states in homes per capita, and has systematically under-funded subsidized housing for our lowest income residents. Our housing shortage puts extraordinary downward pressure on everyone, and those at the bottom of the economic ladder are at significant risk of being pushed onto the streets. We *must* end this severe housing shortage to end homelessness.”

In addition, he noted, “A minority of homeless people have mental health and/or addiction problems. We need to rebuild California’s safety net so people can access critical services to stay housed or become housed. It’s way too hard for people to access these life-saving services, and homelessness increases as a result.”

Jim Boren argues that we need to “build safe and affordable housing, even if the neighbors protest.”

He argues: “Government leaders like to convene meetings on homelessness, write reports and wring their hands at news conferences. But what they don’t want to do is upset well-connected neighbors who fight affordable housing projects that could put homeless into safe housing.”

He added, “What they don’t want to do is adequately fund mental health and substance abuse services, which could help reduce homelessness. What they don’t want to do is address the chronic poverty that leaves too many residents too close to homelessness. “

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

“About 70% of homeless people have neither a mental health nor an addiction problem. They simply can’t afford housing. They’re living in shelters, cars, motels, tents, or couches, often going to work and bringing their kids to school each day. They are in this predicament because of California’s failure to build enough housing at any income level,” said Senator Wiener.

Making claims like this further undermines Wiener’s credibility. Why would the Vanguard even quote this?

Ron, why do you doubt what the senator says? Do you have better estimates? (I don’t know the actual numbers, but it seems by the way you frame your comment that you think they are wildly out of touch.)

But, David’s own article states that mental illness (alone) is a factor in approximately the same percentage that Scott Wiener puts forth as a combined percentage (of mental illness/substance abusers).

Wiener’s statement has no acknowledgement that some additional percentage are substance abusers, but are not defined as mentally ill.

No, I’m not going to research this today – no time to do so.

But, one wonders what Wiener’s source is. Wiener appears to have his own “agenda”, regarding the percentages he puts forth.

Regardless of the exact numbers, the biggest problem is the increase in numbers of homeless and that is not being driven by some sudden surge in mental illness and it’s coinciding with the housing crisis, which tells you, the driver here is not mental illness but housing availability and cost.

One wonders where the extended families are, for some who are experiencing homelessness. No parents, siblings, uncles/aunts who are willing to take them in? Just leave them on the street?

Family dissonance/divorce, etc. often precede homelessness… that bridge has been burned from the get go. And/or sometimes due to some degree of MH issues that many families, unfortunately, don’t want to acknowledge, or spend the time, effort , and money to address. There is already a lack of caritas/love.

So, someone in ‘pain’, without a good support system, no treatment, “self-medicates” – alcohol, MJ, strong drugs, etc. Not sustainable… so they lose their jobs/income, andnowhavelittle place to go unless there is a caring stranger. Or, a ‘community’.

MH issues, untreated, can well lead to substance abuse, which is a bad ‘feedback loop’ regarding the underlying, untreated MH issues. That’s reality.

Of two guys on the streets in Davis that I got to know pretty well, the above scenario/history applies to one… the other was classic PTSD… the only ‘drug’ he used was tobacco. Equally homeless… for some reason, there was no family support. That’s reality. He died ‘on the street’… combination of bad dental health, exposure, and congenital pre-disposition to heart disease… in his mid-50’s.

A famous fictional character said something along the lines of, “One wonders where the work-house, prisons are, for some who are poor, and/or experiencing homelessness. No parents, siblings, uncles/aunts who are willing to take them in? Just leave them on the street!!!”

“And if they die, so much the better as that will decrease the surplus population.”

Perhaps impossible to do. I know both directly and second hand of families that have tried to house homeless relatives but been unable to because the homeless individual is unwilling, or violent, or confused ….

This is a societal issue that cannot always be relegated to the family no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

Tia: Your comment provides additional evidence that creating market-rate housing in relatively expensive areas is NOT the solution to homelessness. In other words, there are often problems (other than being “priced out” of a given area) that’s causing homelessness.

Essentially the same thing that Alan M., Rik, me, and others have generally been stating.

What Riki posted was data from a 2010 survey (from one evening) that appeared to be national. He is making the assumption that the data haven’t changed in nearly a decade and that the profile of California homeless are similar to the national profile.

I’m sorry that I even made any comment today, as I just don’t have time to engage.

But your citation (above) notes that the majority does not address where they came from, originally. It also does not address whether or not they were homeless (or on the border of experiencing it) before they arrived.

Again (and in general), where are these folks’ extended families, and why aren’t they helping? (The answer to that may illuminate some reasons why some of these folks are homeless in the first place.) Are their entire extended families homeless, as well? Parents, brothers, sisters, uncles/aunts, etc., all out living on the streets?

Unless we are planning on deporting people to their state of origin, which I believe is not only illegal but probably not morally acceptable to the majority, I am not sure why the site birth or previous occupancy matters. We have people on the streets who need housing, for which their is no supply of affordably lodging. This is the core problem.

Unfortunately, we keep bickering about the details of how to provide housing. We keep giving exemptions to developers, for example, approving luxury accommodations with no affordable housing offsets. We are entirely willing to accept luxury projects while denying affordable projects. We are promoting “nice to haves” without addressing actual needs. For me, this is unconscionable.

Ironically have gotten to know a couple of Davis homeless (unsheltered) pretty well… they were white, had been middle class, things went sideways for them … one via family/MH/alcohol/other drug issues… gotten acquainted with many other local homeless… pretty much all male, ~95% (guesstimate), ranging in age from 17- 65… probably 85% have little/no family friend support,except for their friends and “families” on the street with them… and yes there is a ‘community’ of homeless in Davis, where they care and try to help each other, but sometimes the help is providing alcohol/drugs… but, when a homeless guy asked me for help (getting to doctors/shelters) to deal with substance/health/shelter issues, and I went to pick him up to make appointments for those, but couldn’t find thim, there were a dozen people, over a dozen weeks, who offered to, and then helped me help ML… they quickly came to trust me that I was trying to help… and readily assisted me…

‘Funny’ one of the folk who really helped a couple of times told me, apparently sincerely, that he had CIA implants in his brain, and was frequently getting messages… and he appeared to be stone-cold-sober.

This was about two years ago, Gospel truth…

Not sure government can do this… they can facilitate, but it will take caring individuals to help get them to services…that is my experience, bolstered by much in ‘the literature’… if you are interested in getting your hands dirty by helping at the personal level, just let me know.

Another term (“extended family”) whose definition is ambiguous, and means different things to different people… some mean sibs, some mean cousins/aunts/uncles… some mean to include 2nd/3rd cousins… some mean fellow Davis folk, particularly close neighbors… some would opine, all humanity…

A certain rabbi (teacher) was asked about ‘who is my neighbor?’… the answer, in the form of a parable, is generally known as the ‘story of the Good Samaritan’… where an ‘enemy’ was the one who took care of “his brother”/neighbor… the priest and the levite didn’t lift a finger to care for the guy who was “mugged”…

Not so much… in Iowa, many “people of faith” who shelter and work with those who would otherwise be homeless… more so than in CA, and Davis (%-age wise).

Plus there is the climate thing… if you’re homeless, out on the street, no intervention by good folk, you’d not likely survive an Iowan winter… you’d try to go south, and/or east/west, where the climate/weather won’t kill you in the winter.

You are correct, regarding “people of faith”. They’re often the ones attempting to help the homeless here, as well.

Yes – the climate is fact, as I’ve previously noted. I suspect that local support systems are also a factor in attracting and maintaining a homeless population (including for folks who migrate from more inhospitable climates).

Homelessness has been an issue since the time of the gold rush. (For that matter, I wonder how many Native Americans in “California” were “homeless” – before the takeover by Spain/Mexico and the United States? I suspect the answer to that is “none” were homeless.)

To paraphrase the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, the West coast’s motto might be, “send us your homeless” (but don’t send any support for them).

Again, my only objection to this article had to do with Scott Wiener’s claims, and his agenda behind it.

Ironically, in CA, the government directly created homelessness, during WWII… called ‘internment’ facilities… while folk were interned, in many cases their homes and property (including ‘farmland’, and other assets) were effectively taken from them, and very many had to start over, from scratch, often, families with children. Homeless.

From this, we can clearly see government actions (and, I posit, inactions) can be a direct or indirect cause of homelessness…

Ron also brings up the good point,

(but don’t send any support for them). thing…

The flow of fed income tax FROM CA, as opposed to fed funds TO CA has been pretty much one way (at least, very disproportionate) for years, and has gotten worse under the current admin.

Just remembered the thing NV did, sending homeless and/or mentally ill to CA, by providing them a bus ticket…

This is partly because we have changed both the definition of and visibility of homelessness. In urban areas, it is impossible to be “homeless” as we now define it and invisible. We have changed the landscape so as to make “living off the land” in the sense of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle an impossibility. There have always been individuals who were content to live in a hand made shelter and obtain their food from hunting, fishing and small plot gardening or gathering. We have depleted their habitat and then complain bitterly when they try to exist in what we define as “ours”.

I feel this makes us morally obligated as a society to provide shelter we define as adequate.

How about we acknowledge the significance of the problem and, like Senator Wiener, propose solutions, rather than quibble over numbers?

Amen.

But I’d go one step farther… beyond proposing solutions (multiple, but don’t think there is one, or even a dozen “solutions”… BTW, this IS rocket science… I’d advocate “approaches”, to mitigate, or help alleviate), once we have apparently/reasonable, viable approaches, to actually acton them!

We also have a problem with the definition of “homeless”… some equate it with being ‘on-the-street’… others include those who actually have shelter, inc. the couch surfers (“housing insecure” by some definitions). Same problem with terms like “the hungry”, vs. “food insecure”…

From the article, it appears Weiner is combining the “homeless”, with the “housing insecure”…

Which is fine, but others may not use the same facts/metrics when using same terms…

That conclusion is not supported.
It could also be that certain locales appeal to those who are homeless. Is homelessness a problem in, say Iowa?

If anyone thinks this is strictly an analytical/problem/solving issue… devoid of caritas/caring, genuine empathy for the individual… I’m saying, emphatically, you are clueless… as long as folk lump the homeless (as in unsheltered/on the street), as a “group” using statistical terms as to their make up, you do not understand. For every 10 folk, homeless/unsheltered in Davis, there are at least 10 (might be one with multiple personalities) different stories of how that came to be… and how to change things.

And, the other key for these folk, is they DO haveto seriously WANT to change things for themselves… and commit to what it takes to change… we cannot change them… we can only invite/encourage/facilitate/support their wish to change… and as a ‘person of faith’, I’ll keep trying, as I can, to open the door, inviting them in (some have given up knocking on the door, so I seek to open it for them, in advance)… they have to cross the threshold on their own, but am willing to share my skinny shoulder for them to lean on, in doing so…

I have learned, the ‘hard way’, how much depends on them… had the arrogance to think Icould solve, and was proven wrong…

“From this, we can clearly see government actions (and, I posit, inactions) can be a direct or indirect cause of homelessness…”

Although some of us acknowledge that government action or inaction is one root cause of homelessness, very few of us want the government ( or at least our tax dollars) to play a major role in addressing the issue.

“if you are interested in getting your hands dirty by helping at the personal level, just let me know.”

I am sure you did not mean this to sound condescending, however, it might have been better to ask first. I have gotten my hands extremely “dirty” at various points in my life up to and including opening my own home to the temporarily homeless. I say this not to virtue signal, but to make my point clearer. In a society with as much wealth as ours, I do not believe that the provision of basics ( a safe and sanitary living area), clothing, food, water, medical care should ever be left “to the kindness of strangers”. I disagree with you fundamentally that the government should not be taking this on. On the local level, we watched a city council force a community into working collaboratively with a developer for an entirely elective amenity for our community. And yet, the same council was unwilling to pressure developers to provide affordable housing as part of another project. We see this willingness to “help” the already affluent while ignoring true needs on all levels of government.

Tia… seriously did not intend to be condescending… far from…if my wording came across that way, I sincerely apologize…

Please note that I previously posited that gov’t needed to facilitate, but cannot “solve”… I never said gov’t/society had no role, I posited that at the end of the day, there are no “solutions”… but there may be good approaches… individual responses, with Gov’t/societal support… so,

I disagree with you fundamentally that the government should not be taking this on.

either shows we have to agree to disagree, or that we are speaking nuances…

On this,

On the local level, we watched a city council force a community into working collaboratively with a developer for an entirely elective amenity for our community. And yet, the same council was unwilling to pressure developers to provide affordable housing as part of another project. We see this willingness to “help” the already affluent while ignoring true needs on all levels of government.

Find it ironic that you use “force” and “collaboratively” in the same thought… I thought you supported ‘collaboration’… but that is more than kinda’ off-topic, particularly when some guy who gets to to wear a black robe killed or seriously wounded Trackside, ruled in favor of “your neighborhood”…

I also question your use of the term “elective amenity”… [patently undefined]

Please don’t consider this a personal attack… I don’t think you meant that towards me…

We differ, but that’s just fine with me…

If you wish to help with homeless (on the street folk), in the future, feel free to advise…

I thought you supported ‘collaboration’… but that is more than kinda’ off-topic, particularly when some guy who gets to to wear a black robe killed or seriously wounded Trackside, ruled in favor of “your neighborhood”…

You say that like it’s a bad thing. But SERIOUSLY, WTF (as in Where The F**k) did that come from???

as a non-partisan and non-wing, I am fascinated and bit puzzled by the discrepancy between 33% and 80% depending on your political affiliation or ideology. Why would right-wingers try to claim more homeless are drug addicts than actually are, and why would left-wingers try to claim less homeless are drug addicts than actually are? How can belief system alter the ‘facts’ so catastrophically, and more to the point — what is the motivation to do so, and then believe those facts and discredit the ‘other’ side? Why so on both sides? I really don’t get it.

My interest is not enabling active users, but whether that is 33% of 80% of the un-housed matters not as to policy – only that we help people who truly want help in relation to their needs. So it seems to me important that this number get a bit closer than forty-seven percentage points apart — surely we can scientifically nail it down a bit closer than that!

Seems this time around addiction is heavily, steadily downplayed, such as CR:

the biggest problem is the increase in numbers of homeless and that is not being driven by some sudden surge in mental illness and it’s coinciding with the housing crisis, which tells you, the driver here is not mental illness but housing availability and cost.

But isn’t it quite possible, as believed by many (see ‘Seattle is . . . ‘; oh, forget it), that much of what we see, especially, is driven by a ‘sudden’ surge in opioid use? (and by sudden I mean steadily and heavily growing over the last decade)

Eric: What “agenda” is that? To address the housing crisis? How about we acknowledge the significance of the problem and, like Senator Wiener, propose solutions, rather than quibble over numbers?

Seems like you haven’t been reading Rik’s posts, regarding this.

In any case, building market-rate housing in some of the more expensive areas is probably not going to be occupied by homeless individuals.

And again, if Wiener is going to make inaccurate claims in the first place, followed by market-rate “solutions”, I’m wondering what credibility you think he has.

You might ask David why he first started talking (only) about those with mental illness (and assigned a “percentage” based upon that estimate), and then cited a quote from Wiener which “combined” mental illness and susbstance abuse together, coming up with the same percentage. In other words, the citation from Wiener essentially conflicts with David’s claim. All within the same article, no less.

And if anyone can’t see right through what’s actually going on here (regarding a developer push for even more market rate housing in some of the most expensive, crowded areas of the country – which will never be occupied by homeless individuals), all I can say is that I think there’s a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. They’ve got you hook, line and sinker.

Developers are becoming more clever, regarding the misuse of “liberal” concerns to persuade others to accept ever-increasing development.

In any case, building market-rate housing in some of the more expensive areas is probably not going to be occupied by homeless individuals.

The theory that the development lobby has the YIMBY ZOMBIES believing is that rich people will move into the luxury apartments they build, opening up enough single-family homes and apartments for the lower classes that rents will go down overall.

Remember “Trickle Down Economics” under Ronald Regan? This is Trickle-Down Rent Reduction. It actually works really well . . . if 1/3 of the population is killed off by a new strain of the plague.

On June 18th, I posed the question in the Vanguard Comics section:as a non-partisan and non-wing, I am fascinated and bit puzzled by the discrepancy between 33% and 80% depending on your political affiliation or ideology.

You certainly did. And as I recall, it generated no response, even though it was a very good question.

And here we go again, in this article.

It is the “Vanguard Comics” section, indeed.

As you also noted, this goes to the heart of the question regarding the “cause” and “solutions” for homelessness, as well. Those claiming 30% are pushing the “build, baby build” model – including market-rate development proposals like Trackside.

Those claiming 30% are using the latest research out of California as reported by the LA Times and Sacramento Bee. One thing to keep in mind, there is a difference between the homeless population many of whom are temporary and used to have homes and those who are chronically homeless and living on the streets. For the purpose of housing, I think you would focus on the larger picture of homelessness whereas in terms of focusing on mental health services on the narrower population of chronically homeless.

Our Advertisers

About Us

The Vanguard provides the Davis Community with incisive in-depth coverage of local government on a wide variety of issues. Since 2006, The Vanguard has provided Davis and Yolo County with some of the best groundbreaking news coverage on local government and policy issues affecting our city, our schools, the county, and the Sacramento Region.